IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J.
M/s. Prerna Agro Food Products through its Proprietor Shri. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), through its Managing Director and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5269 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2023
Writ Petition - Cancellation of Allotment - Bihar Industries Commercial Policy, 2016 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Industries Commercial Policy, 2016, emphasizing the importance of providing opportunities for commercial production, especially in light of unavoidable circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The court interpreted the policy as allowing for flexibility in the enforcement of allotment conditions, particularly when the petitioner demonstrated a commitment to compliance through an undertaking. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to quash the cancellation orders and grant the petitioner a chance to commence operations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the cancellation of a plot allotted for commercial production due to inability to start operations caused by unavoidable circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner provided an undertaking to commence production within a specified timeframe and clear outstanding dues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's undertaking and previous judgments that favored granting opportunities for starting commercial production under similar circumstances. It concluded that justice would be served by allowing the petitioner to proceed with the production.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of the plot allotment was justified given the circumstances preventing the petitioner from starting commercial production and whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to fulfill the conditions of the allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Bihar Industries Commercial Policy, 2016, support granting opportunities for compliance in light of unavoidable circumstances. The acceptance of the petitioner's undertaking was crucial in determining the outcome.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the cancellation orders, and directed the BIADA to hand over possession of the plot to the petitioner, contingent upon the fulfillment of the conditions outlined in the undertaking.
JUDGMENT :
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J.) :
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following releifs;
(ii) To quash the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the Principal Secretary. Department of Industries, Government of Bihar (Respondent No.2), in Appeal No. 102 of 2023, by which the order dated 29.12 2022. passed by the Deputy General Manager, Industrial Area, Patna Cluster BIADA, Bihar Patna (respondent no. 6) has been duly affirmed and the Appeal was rejected.
(iii) For a direction upon the Respondent Authorities not to allot petitioner's Plot No. O-7(P) to any other person, till the disposal of the writ application.
(iv) For directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the allotment of the petitioner till the disposal of the writ petition.
(v) For any other relief or rleiefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the eye of law.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that due to unavoidable circumstances like Covid-19 etc., the petitioner could not start the commercial production and the same is not deliberate but for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and therefore, an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to start commercial production.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that under the similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15567 of 2022 (M/s Maa Kali Food Products Industrial Growth Centre, Maranga Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) dated 02.12.2022 has set aside the order of Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the BIADA”) based on the undertaking given by the petitioner therein and an opportunity was given to the industry to start its commercial production.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has also filed an undertaking before this Court which reads as under:-
2. That in compliance of the order dated 15.09.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in C.W.J.C No. 5269/2023, I am giving the present undertaking on affidavit.
3. That I shall start commercial production within 90 days from the date on which the order of cancellation dated 07.06.2018 is recalled by the BIADA.
4. That I further undertake that within nine months I shall make the unit fully operational and functional at least to the capacity of 80% production as per original term of the allotment.
5. That I shall clear all update admitted dues (if any) payable to BIADA, within four weeks from the date of handing over possession/recall of the order of cancellation.
6. That the petitioner further undertakes and ready to give bank guarantee of Rs 1, 00,000/-(Rupees One Lakhs) vide Performance Bank Guarantee No. 4403IPEBG230002 Date: 04.10.2023 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
7. That I shall clear all the dues against GST/Electricity charges.
8. That I further undertake that in the event of failure to comply with the undertaking given by me, BIADA shall take over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises with liberty for further allotment to 3rd party and I shall loose all rights over the land/ premises.
9. That I shall be liable for the initiation of the contempt proceedings for having violated the present undertaking furnished to this Hon'ble Court.
10. That I will abide myself by the contents as given in the present undertaking.”
6. Having regard to the above said und
Failure to utilize allocated industrial land justifies its cancellation under statutory provisions.
Acceptance of petitioner's undertaking and consequences of breach as a basis for quashing orders.
Compliance with undertaking and consequences of breaching it are crucial in the disposal of the petition.
The court upheld the cancellation of land allotment due to the petitioner's non-utilization for over twenty years, reinforcing authority's jurisdiction under the BIADA Act, 1974 and its amendments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.